Looks good on speed and descent on approach.Till till 3500 ft before RWY at 123kThen at 1000 ft before RWY at 109k - stalling.Then 85k just before the rocks - climbing, no doubt at full throttle, but not soon enough.

I'm new to site and find this particular recording fascinating. My question, Is Asiana 214 on approach and asked for emergency vehicles or has the crash landing just occured and the Asiana pilot is requesting help after the plane has come to a stop?

Dave, this audio file has made it out into the wild without permission from you. Additionally, many of these sources using the audio are not attributing the source. However, I saw CNN properly attribute the source of the audio, but just wanted to make you aware.

I'm new to site and find this particular recording fascinating. My question, Is Asiana 214 on approach and asked for emergency vehicles or has the crash landing just occured and the Asiana pilot is requesting help after the plane has come to a stop?

I've listened to a long version and a short version of the audio tape. Both indicate the landing was normal, or perceived to be normal. The Tower audio gives a sudden up tempo about 58 seconds into the tape. In the background, one of the other Controllers can be heard saying "Go Around" to another aircraft. The Controller handling Asiana 214 responded to both of the downed aircraft's radio transmissions with "Emergency vehicles are on the way" and "We have everybody on the way" or something similar.

It is my belief that the Tower crew saw the crash. Based on the audio, and the location of the Tower in relation to the approach end of Runway 28 Left. Their performance after the incident was extraordinary. They immediately moved into "Go Around" Mode.

I'm new to site and find this particular recording fascinating. My question, Is Asiana 214 on approach and asked for emergency vehicles or has the crash landing just occured and the Asiana pilot is requesting help after the plane has come to a stop?

I've listened to a long version and a short version of the audio tape. Both indicate the landing was normal, or perceived to be normal. The Tower audio gives a sudden up tempo about 58 seconds into the tape. In the background, one of the other Controllers can be heard saying "Go Around" to another aircraft. The Controller handling Asiana 214 responded to both of the downed aircraft's radio transmissions with "Emergency vehicles are on the way" and "We have everybody on the way" or something similar.

It is my belief that the Tower crew saw the crash. Based on the audio, and the location of the Tower in relation to the approach end of Runway 28 Left. Their performance after the incident was extraordinary. They immediately moved into "Go Around" Mode.

Except for maybe "I have a problem" and when he gives his call sign, utterly unintelligible to my ear. Seemed like tower couldn't salvage anything useful out of the coms either and just kept responding "emergency vehicles are on the way". What a mess.

Doing my best to change all voice to text. Notice that most of the pilots are professional and read everything very fast except for the important parts. I'm not from the area so forgive me for botching the names of locations on non relevant traffic.

0:12 Tower, United 85?. 0:15 United 85 go ahead. 0:17 United 85 at the end (of the taxiway) we might need a few more minutes, just a heads up. 0:22 United 85, Rodger, hold short of runway 28 left let me know when you're ready. 0:26 Hold short of 28 left united 85.

As we now know, the ILS and "Poppy lights" were out of service for 28L for some time before this incident.Maybe the pilots were not aware of this. When they became aware of the problem it was too late to achieve a safe glide slope and landing. They should have initiated a go around much sooner.One would think the pilots of the Friday flight, who made a successful landing would have notified the Asiana company of the ILS problem. I have experienced ILS problems when the course part was working. but the glide slope was not. Or, was this a poorly trained pilot, which Asiana has been criticised for in the past, who was attempting a visual approach? It will be interesting to see the final report.Thankfully the loss of life was minimal. Prayers to their families and those injured.

My reference to the "Poppy Lights" is from my flight instructor many years ago. She said if I saw 4 "red poppy flowers" on final I would be pushing up poppies from my grave. I never have forgotten that, and never will.

As we now know, the ILS and "Poppy lights" were out of service for 28L for some time before this incident.Maybe the pilots were not aware of this. When they became aware of the problem it was too late to achieve a safe glide slope and landing. They should have initiated a go around much sooner.One would think the pilots of the Friday flight, who made a successful landing would have notified the Asiana company of the ILS problem.

Any notice of the ILS being out of service for either runway would have been added to the list of NOTAMs and broadcast over the ATIS. This means that ALL pilots would have been aware of the problem well before reaching the TRACON area. Saying that this is a company problem really has nothing to do with it.

Quote

I have experienced ILS problems when the course part was working. but the glide slope was not. Or, was this a poorly trained pilot, which Asiana has been criticised for in the past, who was attempting a visual approach? It will be interesting to see the final report.Thankfully the loss of life was minimal. Prayers to their families and those injured.

this is assuming that they were on the ILS. According to the METAR, the field was VMC, so they could have been on either the Quiet Bridge or Tip Toe visual to 28L or 28R, or just the straight visual approach. My guess was the Quiet Bridge Visual, all of which would have been given clearance to by NCT.

In fact, they couldn't be on the ILS, because according to the NOTAMs, the glide paths for both 28R an 28L were unusable until mid-August, and both Cat II and Cat III ILS were not available at all until mid August, and those NOTAMs went into effect last week. So the only ILS approach available would have been to 19L, which normally would be used with East Ops.

So it was a visual approach, a CVFP, or nothing at all. BTW. Check https://www.notams.faa.gov for the NOTAMs in question. Either way, I don't think this is a 'not knowing the procedure' issue.

I agree that is was an intentional visual approach. So now the question is why did the pilot in command misjudge his final approach so badly? According to "FlightAware" his descent was radically different than normal. Maybe his Barometric Pressure was not set correctly? It would be good to hear his landing approval from the tower and his read back.I suppose my main question is why, upon realizing he was far above the normal glide scope, the pilot didn't declare a missed approach.

Looks good on speed and descent on approach.Till till 3500 ft before at 123kThen at 1000 ft at 109k - stalling.Then 85k just before the rocks - climbing, no doubt at full throttle, but not soon enough.

It appears from those numbers, that the plane succeeded in climbing, but still hit the ground. Could this be because of an incorrect pressure setting?